3 ms·
Why didn't they switch to using UTF-8 internally in the 3.0 switch instead of sticking with the archaic UCS crap? I'd even give them a pass if their UTF-8 impl
by blasdel 17y ago
Why didn't they switch to using UTF-8 internally in the 3.0 switch instead of sticking with the archaic UCS crap?
I'd even give them a pass if their UTF-8 implementation didn't handle combining characters correctly, since noone else seems to bother!
- rbanffy 17y agoCan you explain why this is a problem?
- Silhouette 17y agoI suspect what the GP is getting at is that UTF-8 is backward compatible with ASCII, so if all you're doing is working with 127-bit ASCII text files and you don't need the additional Unicode support there is minimal overhead. UCS-2 and other multibyte Unicode representations don't have this useful property, so even with a simple ASCII file there a significant translation overhead is going to be required.